I am for funding the most promising types of research.
Wish list for 2008
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
I am for funding the most promising types of research.
evince
Truthmatters
I have a nephew with aspergers syndrome.
I really think there will be some breakthroughs coming if not fthis year in the coming ones.
Do you think it was from his vaccines?
TexasMeg
the observer
What dr.s and researchers are saying now is that people on the spectrum are likely genetically predisposed, however, they know that there is an environmental trigger. What they don't say, or don't know, is what that trigger is. This is where parents of autistic children can step in, for they are the ones that observe and study these children most. More times than not, the "change" in their children happens within weeks of a vaccination...typically MMR or flu. And btw...the thinking on the genetic predisposition is leaning towards allergies. Seems to me that it would be fairly simple to test infants and children before injecting their bodies with something they may not be able to handle.
Epicurus
Reasonable
A difficult decision, to protect from potentially deadly or crippling diseases or not.
I personally have never had a flu shot, but have had all the vaccinations.
Besides Dano said a little mercury nerver hurt anyone
There are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the indiscriminate and often mandatory use of vaccines.
TexasMeg
the observer
A difficult decision, to protect from potentially deadly or crippling diseases or not.
I personally have never had a flu shot, but have had all the vaccinations.
Besides Dano said a little mercury nerver hurt anyone
I am sure you have had the required vaccinations. I have as well...a whole 10 of them. Now our children get 36 before the age of 2.
thats the defense of the cdc is that if ur anti ANY vaccines ur pro exposing ur kid some horrid disease. fear mongering. All we want is to eliminate unnecessary ones and to spread out the exposure.. also to clean up the vaccines and eliminate the garbage in them.
The Vaccination
By Patricia Crutchfield
His trusting eyes looked up at me
He smiled his sweetest smile
What a precious gift from God he was
My son my first born child,
The nurse came in and weighed him
Put a thermometer briefly in his ear
Then she told me to take off his diaper
And expose his plump little rear.
I did as I was instructed
For I knew the procedure by now
It’s time for his next vaccination
This time I won’t flinch, I vow.
The syringes and vial of the serums
Lay benignly on her sterile steel tray
And though I try to watch her,
I find myself turning away.
His scream at the prick of the needle
Sends a bolt of pure terror through me
It’s animal like pitch was not normal
And I turned around quickly to see.
His beautiful body went rigid
Then spasmed again and again
What’s happening to my poor baby?
And what can I do to help him?
I could sense the nurse’s pure panic
As she called out to the doctor to come
The seconds that passed seems like hours
And where is that screaming coming from?
I open my eyes in a room filled with light
The silence a deafening roar
My husband is standing beside me
He says everything fine, but his tears tell me more
I try to sit up, but I’m weary
Another needle pierces my arm
I drift off once again into darkness
But my mind beats a steady alarm.
Two days and two nights I am sedated
Until now no one tells me why
Then the doctor appears with my husband
And immediately I start to cry
My most precious gift has been taken
He’ll never again be mine to hold
His body once so warm and loving
Now lays on a slab icy cold
I’m sorry says the good doctor
A reaction we couldn’t foresee
Please accept my sincerest condolence
I guess it was just meant to be
Our son now plays with the angels
And my heart breaks anew everyday
Its the angels who tickle his tummy
And it’s in their arms not mine, he will lay
A statistic, one in seventeen hundred
That’s what they say of my son
But I say one child is too many
To die from a vaccination
So mothers do not be so trusting
Hear me before it’s to late
Don’t lose your child to the “program”
Investigate before you vaccinate
By Patricia Crutchfield
His trusting eyes looked up at me
He smiled his sweetest smile
What a precious gift from God he was
My son my first born child,
The nurse came in and weighed him
Put a thermometer briefly in his ear
Then she told me to take off his diaper
And expose his plump little rear.
I did as I was instructed
For I knew the procedure by now
It’s time for his next vaccination
This time I won’t flinch, I vow.
The syringes and vial of the serums
Lay benignly on her sterile steel tray
And though I try to watch her,
I find myself turning away.
His scream at the prick of the needle
Sends a bolt of pure terror through me
It’s animal like pitch was not normal
And I turned around quickly to see.
His beautiful body went rigid
Then spasmed again and again
What’s happening to my poor baby?
And what can I do to help him?
I could sense the nurse’s pure panic
As she called out to the doctor to come
The seconds that passed seems like hours
And where is that screaming coming from?
I open my eyes in a room filled with light
The silence a deafening roar
My husband is standing beside me
He says everything fine, but his tears tell me more
I try to sit up, but I’m weary
Another needle pierces my arm
I drift off once again into darkness
But my mind beats a steady alarm.
Two days and two nights I am sedated
Until now no one tells me why
Then the doctor appears with my husband
And immediately I start to cry
My most precious gift has been taken
He’ll never again be mine to hold
His body once so warm and loving
Now lays on a slab icy cold
I’m sorry says the good doctor
A reaction we couldn’t foresee
Please accept my sincerest condolence
I guess it was just meant to be
Our son now plays with the angels
And my heart breaks anew everyday
Its the angels who tickle his tummy
And it’s in their arms not mine, he will lay
A statistic, one in seventeen hundred
That’s what they say of my son
But I say one child is too many
To die from a vaccination
So mothers do not be so trusting
Hear me before it’s to late
Don’t lose your child to the “program”
Investigate before you vaccinate
uscitizen
Villified User
yeah the age thing is an issue to me as well.
TexasMeg
the observer
Did 36 not bother you??? Yes vaccines can be spread out...they dont need to all be given in first 2 yrs. but cmon...there are NOT 26 more deadly diseases our children our exposed to that we weren't.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Do you have any idea how many kids would be DEAD right now without vaccines? The American population would be cut in half.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
TexasMeg
the observer
$$$$$$
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
http://www.immunizationinfo.org/immunization_issues_detail.cfv?id=52
Vaccine Misinformation
Decades ago, when thousands of children and adults in the United States contracted smallpox, diphtheria, poliomyelitis or measles each year, vaccine safety concerns were not very common. People were more afraid of the diseases themselves than of possible side effects of the vaccines.
Today the situation is different; because of vaccines most parents have not encountered these once-dreaded diseases. For instance:
* Smallpox has been eradicated;
* poliomyelitis has been eliminated in much of the world;
* measles, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and rabies have largely been controlled in the United States and other parts of the world;
* mumps, chickenpox, hepatitis B, and invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae are decreasing in the US;
* new vaccines have been developed against rotavirus, menigococcus, human papillomavirus, shingles and adult and adolescent pertussis;
* and new vaccines are being developed for other diseases.
Most parents today have not seen a child paralyzed by polio, or choking to death from diphtheria, or brain damaged by measles. Fear of vaccine-preventable diseases has diminished while concerns about vaccine safety have increased—even though a number of the vaccines are even safer than decades ago as a result of medical research.
A lack of information or erroneous information about vaccine safety and effectiveness can create confusion among parents who are considering immunizations for their children; this can have tragic consequences.
Vaccine safety concerns and risk perception
No vaccine is 100% effective; no vaccine is 100% safe. As with any drug, there are risks and side effects with vaccines, although serious side effects are mostly rare. However, there is a much higher standard of safety expected of preventive vaccines than for drugs because:
* Vaccines are generally given to many people most of whom are healthy. People tolerate far less risk from Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines than the antibiotics used to treat the diseases it causes, for example.
* Many vaccines are given to children at the ages when developmental and other problems are being recognized for the first time. Because something happened at about the same time does not mean that one caused the other. (See Cause or Coincidence)
* Some vaccines are mandated by state legislatures in order to protect the health and welfare of the public. Some people think that this violates their civil rights, however.
Research shows that people respond better to some types of risks than others.
Natural risks (such as infectious diseases) are better tolerated than manmade risks (such as vaccine side effects). Also, risks that affect adults are better tolerated than risks affecting our children. Risks that are perceived with unclear benefits may be less tolerated than risks where the benefits are understood.
Take for example, measles and the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine. Since these diseases are no longer epidemic in the United States, some parents incorrectly assume that the risk of contracting the disease is lower than the risk of their child experiencing an adverse reaction to MMR. They conclude that there may be little benefit from immunizing their child, hence there may seem to be no reason to take the risk of an adverse event. However, there was a mumps outbreak in the United States in 2006, probably introduced from the epidemic in Great Britain. These infections are just a plane ride away.
Perception of risk depends on people’s experiences and knowledge. A person who experienced an adverse event after vaccination—or thinks that they know someone who did—will perceive vaccines as riskier than a person who has not. Conversely, one who has survived a vaccine-preventable disease—or a physician who has treated that disease—will likely be an advocate for vaccines.
Although concerns about vaccine safety are valid—and necessary—we must carefully examine each claim about the risks of immunizations:
* Is the claim relying on scientific data (for example, large, controlled studies published in respected scientific journals) or on anecdotes (personal stories of sick persons)?
* Are the claims based on facts or are they personal opinions?
* See Evaluating Information on the Web for more questions and answers on this topic.
Missing information
When up-to-date, complete, and scientifically valid information about vaccines is available, parents can make informed decisions. For example, they need to have access to accurate evidence-based information so that they understand the risks of exposure parties, the importance of community immunity, and what the actual risks of complications are (see Vaccine Information). Without this information many may develop a false sense of security and regard immunizations as unimportant.
For example, measles is the most communicable of diseases, has many serious complications and can cause severe brain damage or be fatal. But when a vaccine-preventable disease such as measles is no longer common in a community, parents may not see the need to vaccinate their children against measles, resulting in low immunization rates.
Unfortunately, when a community has low immunization rates, many children—including some who have been immunized—are placed at risk of harm if measles is introduced into the community. With global travel an everyday occurrence, measles is just a plane ride away. For instance, in March 2004, the CDC published information about a student flying from India to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, while incubating measles (1) as well as cases of measles among children who had recently been adopted from China. (2)
Like parents, scientists and scientific review groups need data to evaluate vaccine safety concerns. Vaccine safety research often requires very large—often expensive—studies that do not compete well with other types of research funded by the Federal government.
Unfortunately, when a vaccine safety concern is suggested, the necessary data to support or reject the hypothesis may not yet have been collected—in fact sometimes this may take several years of research. This often leaves scientific review groups like the Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Committee with insufficient data to be able to fully evaluate vaccine safety concerns.
The experience concerning the hypothesis that thimerosal in vaccines caused autism—first suggested in 1999—is illustrative of the dilemma of insufficient data (missing information). In 2001, when the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee first examined the issue, it stated that at that time the available evidence was inadequate to decide. (3) In other words, the information was missing. By 2004, however, much more scientific data was available and the IOM Committee was able to conclude that the data favored rejection of that hypothesis. (4)
Misinformation (false or misleading information)
The timing and widespread use of vaccines make them easy scapegoats to be blamed for all sorts of serious illnesses. Of course not all vaccine safety concerns are misinformation—only those that persist despite the evidence against them. Even when the concern stops being an issue for most in the scientific community, it may remain an issue for many others with vested interests—whether politicians, lawyers, journalists or the group that concerns health professionals the most: well intentioned but misinformed parents trying to understand and alleviate their child’s afflictions. Many media stories use faulty reports and parental concerns to depict a “controversy” about vaccines, failing to mention that the scientific community does not feel that a controversy exists.
In spite of the substantial evidence now available that allows rejection of the hypotheses that vaccines cause autism, there are some who continue to state that there is a causal association. These claims, once based on missing information, now fall into the category of misinformation.
Unfortunately, the misinformed person with a fixed opinion about vaccines has many sophisticated tools to disseminate misinformation, creating confusion about vaccine safety. Misinformation comes in many packages and may be widely publicized by the media and others causing lowered immunization levels and disease risk.
For example, a misinformed couple in Tennessee, confused about vaccine safety because of what they had read on the Internet, decided to delay their daughter’s vaccinations. Some time later, the baby girl was stricken with a form of meningitis that could have been prevented by a vaccine. (5)
Misinformation also involves the intentional dissemination of false information. In this case, people are not only confused about vaccine safety but may be against vaccines altogether.
Misinformation about vaccines is frequently encountered on the Internet. Some Web sites, for instance, oppose the immunization of infants and children. They express a variety of claims that are largely unsupported by peer-reviewed scientific literature (See table below).
Misinformation Web sites tend to rely on emotionally-filled anecdotes about bad things that happened to children or were first recognized—coincidental in time with vaccine administration—while ignoring or distorting scientific studies. (6)
Unfortunately for communities, antivaccination movements have also had a negative effect on public health through the years. One study, for example, showed that movements against the whooping cough vaccine caused whooping cough epidemics in several countries. (7)
How can you distinguish good information from misinformation? Misinformation often includes one or more of the following elements:
* Invalid assumptions. An invalid assumption is something you treat as if it were known to be true or false, when in fact it is not. For example, some parents regard hepatitis B immunization as unnecessary, assuming that this is a disease for which their children are not at risk. This is an invalid assumption (read here to know why).
* Logical Fallacies. A logical fallacy is a flaw in an argument that makes the argument illogic or invalid. Some common logical fallacies are ad hominem arguments (attacking those presenting the argument rather than the argument itself); appeals to pity (trying to win support for one’s arguments by appealing to feelings of sympathy or guilt); and arguments from ignorance (claiming that a statement is true only because it has not been proven false, or that it is false only because it has not been proven true) among others.
* Ad hoc hypotheses. An ad hoc (literally, "for this") hypothesis is an adjustment made to a theory just for the purpose of salvaging it from being refuted. Ad hoc explanations try to explain findings that do not fit the original theory.
* False experts or experts who lack the needed expertise. An expert in one field may be completely ignorant in another field. For instance, an expert endocrinologist may be an expert on diabetes but is not likely to be expert about vaccine safety or immunology. Unfortunately, some who may be experts in one field eagerly make claims about things outside their field of expertise.
* Pseudoscience. Pseudoscientific claims cannot be verified by other researchers because they are often ambiguous and not measurable. In most cases, these claims are not submitted to peer review (that is, review by experts) before making them public and the methods are usually difficult to understand, making the observations difficult to replicate. Often, data may be represented to show one outcome when another is the case. Other times the methods that are used are likely to give a predetermined outcome. Only data purporting to support the claims is presented while conflicting data are ignored or discarded.
Common claims found on misinformationWeb sites
Claims
Myth:
Natural methods of enhancing immunity are better than vaccinations.
Fact:
The only ‘natural way’ to be immune is to have the disease. Immunity from a preventive vaccine provides protection against disease when a person is exposed to it in the future. That immunity is usually similar to what is acquired from natural infection, although several doses of a vaccine may have to be given for a child to have a full immune response.
Epidemiology—often used to establish vaccine safety—is not science but number crunching.
Epidemiology is a well-established scientific discipline that, among other things, identifies the cause of diseases and the factors that increase a person’s risk for a disease.
Giving multiple vaccines at the same time causes an ‘overload’ of the immune system.
Vaccination does not overburden a child’s immune system; the recommended vaccines use only a small portion of the immune system's "memory".
Myth:
Vaccines are ineffective.
Fact:
Vaccines have spared millions of people the effects of devastating diseases. (See Vaccine effectiveness).
Myth:
Prior to the use of vaccinations these diseases had begun to decline due to improved nutrition and hygiene.
Fact:
In the 19th and 20th centuries, some infectious diseases began to be better controlled because of improvements in sanitation, clean water, pasteurized milk, pest control, etc. However, vaccine-preventable diseases only began to drop dramatically after the vaccines for those diseases were licensed and were given to large numbers of children. (See Vaccine effectiveness).
Vaccines cause illnesses or disorders of unknown cause such as autism, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), immune dysfunction, diabetes, neurological disorders, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and asthma.
Scientific evidence does not support these claims. See IOM reports.
Myth:
Contaminated vaccination lots (or "hot lots") are more likely to cause an adverse reaction.
Fact:
The Food and Drug Administration regulates the production of vaccines very carefully to assure the potency, purity and safety of vaccines.
Vaccine Misinformation
Decades ago, when thousands of children and adults in the United States contracted smallpox, diphtheria, poliomyelitis or measles each year, vaccine safety concerns were not very common. People were more afraid of the diseases themselves than of possible side effects of the vaccines.
Today the situation is different; because of vaccines most parents have not encountered these once-dreaded diseases. For instance:
* Smallpox has been eradicated;
* poliomyelitis has been eliminated in much of the world;
* measles, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and rabies have largely been controlled in the United States and other parts of the world;
* mumps, chickenpox, hepatitis B, and invasive Streptococcus pneumoniae are decreasing in the US;
* new vaccines have been developed against rotavirus, menigococcus, human papillomavirus, shingles and adult and adolescent pertussis;
* and new vaccines are being developed for other diseases.
Most parents today have not seen a child paralyzed by polio, or choking to death from diphtheria, or brain damaged by measles. Fear of vaccine-preventable diseases has diminished while concerns about vaccine safety have increased—even though a number of the vaccines are even safer than decades ago as a result of medical research.
A lack of information or erroneous information about vaccine safety and effectiveness can create confusion among parents who are considering immunizations for their children; this can have tragic consequences.
Vaccine safety concerns and risk perception
No vaccine is 100% effective; no vaccine is 100% safe. As with any drug, there are risks and side effects with vaccines, although serious side effects are mostly rare. However, there is a much higher standard of safety expected of preventive vaccines than for drugs because:
* Vaccines are generally given to many people most of whom are healthy. People tolerate far less risk from Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccines than the antibiotics used to treat the diseases it causes, for example.
* Many vaccines are given to children at the ages when developmental and other problems are being recognized for the first time. Because something happened at about the same time does not mean that one caused the other. (See Cause or Coincidence)
* Some vaccines are mandated by state legislatures in order to protect the health and welfare of the public. Some people think that this violates their civil rights, however.
Research shows that people respond better to some types of risks than others.
Natural risks (such as infectious diseases) are better tolerated than manmade risks (such as vaccine side effects). Also, risks that affect adults are better tolerated than risks affecting our children. Risks that are perceived with unclear benefits may be less tolerated than risks where the benefits are understood.
Take for example, measles and the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine. Since these diseases are no longer epidemic in the United States, some parents incorrectly assume that the risk of contracting the disease is lower than the risk of their child experiencing an adverse reaction to MMR. They conclude that there may be little benefit from immunizing their child, hence there may seem to be no reason to take the risk of an adverse event. However, there was a mumps outbreak in the United States in 2006, probably introduced from the epidemic in Great Britain. These infections are just a plane ride away.
Perception of risk depends on people’s experiences and knowledge. A person who experienced an adverse event after vaccination—or thinks that they know someone who did—will perceive vaccines as riskier than a person who has not. Conversely, one who has survived a vaccine-preventable disease—or a physician who has treated that disease—will likely be an advocate for vaccines.
Although concerns about vaccine safety are valid—and necessary—we must carefully examine each claim about the risks of immunizations:
* Is the claim relying on scientific data (for example, large, controlled studies published in respected scientific journals) or on anecdotes (personal stories of sick persons)?
* Are the claims based on facts or are they personal opinions?
* See Evaluating Information on the Web for more questions and answers on this topic.
Missing information
When up-to-date, complete, and scientifically valid information about vaccines is available, parents can make informed decisions. For example, they need to have access to accurate evidence-based information so that they understand the risks of exposure parties, the importance of community immunity, and what the actual risks of complications are (see Vaccine Information). Without this information many may develop a false sense of security and regard immunizations as unimportant.
For example, measles is the most communicable of diseases, has many serious complications and can cause severe brain damage or be fatal. But when a vaccine-preventable disease such as measles is no longer common in a community, parents may not see the need to vaccinate their children against measles, resulting in low immunization rates.
Unfortunately, when a community has low immunization rates, many children—including some who have been immunized—are placed at risk of harm if measles is introduced into the community. With global travel an everyday occurrence, measles is just a plane ride away. For instance, in March 2004, the CDC published information about a student flying from India to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, while incubating measles (1) as well as cases of measles among children who had recently been adopted from China. (2)
Like parents, scientists and scientific review groups need data to evaluate vaccine safety concerns. Vaccine safety research often requires very large—often expensive—studies that do not compete well with other types of research funded by the Federal government.
Unfortunately, when a vaccine safety concern is suggested, the necessary data to support or reject the hypothesis may not yet have been collected—in fact sometimes this may take several years of research. This often leaves scientific review groups like the Institute of Medicine Vaccine Safety Committee with insufficient data to be able to fully evaluate vaccine safety concerns.
The experience concerning the hypothesis that thimerosal in vaccines caused autism—first suggested in 1999—is illustrative of the dilemma of insufficient data (missing information). In 2001, when the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review Committee first examined the issue, it stated that at that time the available evidence was inadequate to decide. (3) In other words, the information was missing. By 2004, however, much more scientific data was available and the IOM Committee was able to conclude that the data favored rejection of that hypothesis. (4)
Misinformation (false or misleading information)
The timing and widespread use of vaccines make them easy scapegoats to be blamed for all sorts of serious illnesses. Of course not all vaccine safety concerns are misinformation—only those that persist despite the evidence against them. Even when the concern stops being an issue for most in the scientific community, it may remain an issue for many others with vested interests—whether politicians, lawyers, journalists or the group that concerns health professionals the most: well intentioned but misinformed parents trying to understand and alleviate their child’s afflictions. Many media stories use faulty reports and parental concerns to depict a “controversy” about vaccines, failing to mention that the scientific community does not feel that a controversy exists.
In spite of the substantial evidence now available that allows rejection of the hypotheses that vaccines cause autism, there are some who continue to state that there is a causal association. These claims, once based on missing information, now fall into the category of misinformation.
Unfortunately, the misinformed person with a fixed opinion about vaccines has many sophisticated tools to disseminate misinformation, creating confusion about vaccine safety. Misinformation comes in many packages and may be widely publicized by the media and others causing lowered immunization levels and disease risk.
For example, a misinformed couple in Tennessee, confused about vaccine safety because of what they had read on the Internet, decided to delay their daughter’s vaccinations. Some time later, the baby girl was stricken with a form of meningitis that could have been prevented by a vaccine. (5)
Misinformation also involves the intentional dissemination of false information. In this case, people are not only confused about vaccine safety but may be against vaccines altogether.
Misinformation about vaccines is frequently encountered on the Internet. Some Web sites, for instance, oppose the immunization of infants and children. They express a variety of claims that are largely unsupported by peer-reviewed scientific literature (See table below).
Misinformation Web sites tend to rely on emotionally-filled anecdotes about bad things that happened to children or were first recognized—coincidental in time with vaccine administration—while ignoring or distorting scientific studies. (6)
Unfortunately for communities, antivaccination movements have also had a negative effect on public health through the years. One study, for example, showed that movements against the whooping cough vaccine caused whooping cough epidemics in several countries. (7)
How can you distinguish good information from misinformation? Misinformation often includes one or more of the following elements:
* Invalid assumptions. An invalid assumption is something you treat as if it were known to be true or false, when in fact it is not. For example, some parents regard hepatitis B immunization as unnecessary, assuming that this is a disease for which their children are not at risk. This is an invalid assumption (read here to know why).
* Logical Fallacies. A logical fallacy is a flaw in an argument that makes the argument illogic or invalid. Some common logical fallacies are ad hominem arguments (attacking those presenting the argument rather than the argument itself); appeals to pity (trying to win support for one’s arguments by appealing to feelings of sympathy or guilt); and arguments from ignorance (claiming that a statement is true only because it has not been proven false, or that it is false only because it has not been proven true) among others.
* Ad hoc hypotheses. An ad hoc (literally, "for this") hypothesis is an adjustment made to a theory just for the purpose of salvaging it from being refuted. Ad hoc explanations try to explain findings that do not fit the original theory.
* False experts or experts who lack the needed expertise. An expert in one field may be completely ignorant in another field. For instance, an expert endocrinologist may be an expert on diabetes but is not likely to be expert about vaccine safety or immunology. Unfortunately, some who may be experts in one field eagerly make claims about things outside their field of expertise.
* Pseudoscience. Pseudoscientific claims cannot be verified by other researchers because they are often ambiguous and not measurable. In most cases, these claims are not submitted to peer review (that is, review by experts) before making them public and the methods are usually difficult to understand, making the observations difficult to replicate. Often, data may be represented to show one outcome when another is the case. Other times the methods that are used are likely to give a predetermined outcome. Only data purporting to support the claims is presented while conflicting data are ignored or discarded.
Common claims found on misinformationWeb sites
Claims
Myth:
Natural methods of enhancing immunity are better than vaccinations.
Fact:
The only ‘natural way’ to be immune is to have the disease. Immunity from a preventive vaccine provides protection against disease when a person is exposed to it in the future. That immunity is usually similar to what is acquired from natural infection, although several doses of a vaccine may have to be given for a child to have a full immune response.
Epidemiology—often used to establish vaccine safety—is not science but number crunching.
Epidemiology is a well-established scientific discipline that, among other things, identifies the cause of diseases and the factors that increase a person’s risk for a disease.
Giving multiple vaccines at the same time causes an ‘overload’ of the immune system.
Vaccination does not overburden a child’s immune system; the recommended vaccines use only a small portion of the immune system's "memory".
Myth:
Vaccines are ineffective.
Fact:
Vaccines have spared millions of people the effects of devastating diseases. (See Vaccine effectiveness).
Myth:
Prior to the use of vaccinations these diseases had begun to decline due to improved nutrition and hygiene.
Fact:
In the 19th and 20th centuries, some infectious diseases began to be better controlled because of improvements in sanitation, clean water, pasteurized milk, pest control, etc. However, vaccine-preventable diseases only began to drop dramatically after the vaccines for those diseases were licensed and were given to large numbers of children. (See Vaccine effectiveness).
Vaccines cause illnesses or disorders of unknown cause such as autism, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), immune dysfunction, diabetes, neurological disorders, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and asthma.
Scientific evidence does not support these claims. See IOM reports.
Myth:
Contaminated vaccination lots (or "hot lots") are more likely to cause an adverse reaction.
Fact:
The Food and Drug Administration regulates the production of vaccines very carefully to assure the potency, purity and safety of vaccines.
Last edited:
TexasMeg
the observer
I assume you meant without. Do you have any idea how many are KILLED because of vaccines???? And no one is saying that all vaccines are bad. They have their purpose and place. But assuming every child's body can handle the onslaught of live cultures, viruses, and metals is asinine.